Distinct subpopulations with unique selectivity profiles.

Distinct subpopulations with unique selectivity profiles.

<p>Responses were calculated from singleton-present displays (example shown on the bottom right). (A) The PhenoGraph algorithm identified 4 FEF subpopulations. Two of these subpopulations exhibited singleton suppression (clusters 1 and 3), one subpopulation showed singleton enhancement (cluste...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096) (author)
Other Authors:	Alexandra Antoniadou (20623903) (author), Georgia G. Gregoriou (20623906) (author)
Published:	2025
Subjects:	Neuroscience Sociology Mental Health Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified xlink "> goal population level representations frontal eye field directed behavior requires parietal lobe contribute distinct neuronal populations units displayed suppression target color could recorded neuronal responses salient distractor compared visual search task salient distractor search time parietal cortex distinct contribution salient distractors target features suppression effects singleton locations results reveal lateral intraparietal larger proportion irrelevant stimuli effective suppression conspicuous distractors 2 regions
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Similar Items

Distinct subpopulations with unique selectivity profiles.
by: Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096)
Published: (2025)

Distinct subpopulations with unique selectivity profiles shown for each monkey separately.
by: Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096)
Published: (2025)

Relationship of target and singleton distractor representations based on neural subspace analysis.
by: Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096)
Published: (2025)

Encoding of target and singleton distractor locations in FEF and LIP.
by: Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096)
Published: (2025)

Distractor suppression in FEF correlates with behavior.
by: Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096)
Published: (2025)

Effect of singleton distractor relative to the exact same stimuli presented in a non-salient context.
by: Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096)
Published: (2025)

Effect of singleton distractor on neuronal firing in FEF and LIP.
by: Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096)
Published: (2025)

Contribution to the shared subspace of LIP units with different selectivity.
by: Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096)
Published: (2025)

Visual search task.
by: Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096)
Published: (2025)

Contribution of mixed selective neurons to encoding of target/singleton location.
by: Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096)
Published: (2025)

LIP activity following array onset in fast and slow trials.
by: Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096)
Published: (2025)

Effect of singleton distractor on neuronal firing shown for each animal separately.
by: Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096)
Published: (2025)

Average population responses aligned to the onset of the first saccade.
by: Panagiotis Sapountzis (60096)
Published: (2025)

Table 3_Category-like representation of statistical regularities allows for stable distractor suppression.docx
by: Catherine W. Seitz (21998390)
Published: (2025)

Table 2_Category-like representation of statistical regularities allows for stable distractor suppression.docx
by: Catherine W. Seitz (21998390)
Published: (2025)

Table 1_Category-like representation of statistical regularities allows for stable distractor suppression.docx
by: Catherine W. Seitz (21998390)
Published: (2025)

Mean ERP amplitudes (in μV) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cue-target-evoked electrophysiological components, separated for a low vs. high number of distractors and therefore a manipulated target detection probability.
by: Sophie Hanke (19935178)
Published: (2024)

Mean ERP amplitudes (in μV) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cue-target-evoked electrophysiological components, separated for target absent vs. present.
by: Sophie Hanke (19935178)
Published: (2024)

Summarized statistical results of the post hoc pair-wise comparisons between the hit rates of the different distractor conditions, separated for each SOA condition.
by: Sophie Hanke (19935178)
Published: (2024)

Mean target detection rates for the experimental conditions.
by: Sophie Hanke (19935178)
Published: (2024)

Distractor effects at cue-target SOA 0 ms for different complexity levels of the visual stimulus configuration.
by: Sophie Hanke (19935178)
Published: (2024)

Global field power and grand averages for the cue-target-evoked ERPs as well as their respective topographical mapping.
by: Sophie Hanke (19935178)
Published: (2024)

Global field power, topographical mapping, and grand averages as well as mean amplitudes of the distractor-evoked ERP (FN, 90-170ms).
by: Sophie Hanke (19935178)
Published: (2024)

Design of an experimental trial from the multiple distractor condition.
by: Sophie Hanke (19935178)
Published: (2024)

Data Sheet 1_Fast perceptual learning induces location-specific facilitation and suppression at early stages of visual cortical processing.docx
by: Yajie Wang (184298)
Published: (2025)

Anger superiority effect or happiness superiority effect: how the distractor homogeneity modulates the asymmetry in searching emotional faces?
by: Xiaofan Jiang (8962256)
Published: (2025)

Data Sheet 1_Sustained attention and inhibitory control: age and sex related difference in children and adolescents using a CPT with distracting events.pdf
by: Carlotta Rivella (22093532)
Published: (2025)

Video 1_Determining dual-task costs and exploring interindividual responsiveness to an opponent using virtual reality.mp4
by: S. Pastel (20912807)
Published: (2025)

Data Sheet 1_Distractor anticipation during working memory is associated with theta and beta oscillations across spatial scales.pdf
by: Dennis Y. Jung (20924339)
Published: (2025)

Data Sheet 2_A multidimensional Bayesian IRT method for discovering misconceptions from concept test data.pdf
by: Martin Segado (20633174)
Published: (2025)

Data Sheet 1_A multidimensional Bayesian IRT method for discovering misconceptions from concept test data.csv
by: Martin Segado (20633174)
Published: (2025)

Behavioral-fMRI correlations and functional connectivity. (A) Behavioral sensitivity to saliency , i.e., the difference in luminance contrast sensitivity to detect the two different foregrounds, is correlated with fMRI saliency-sensitive response in the superficial layers of V1, giving a significant Pearson’s correlation coefficient <i>r</i>. Each circle represents one participant. (B) Pearson’s correlation coefficients <i>r</i> in the superficial layers of V1 and V2, and in the middle layer of IPS. The dashed line indicates the significance threshold after family-wise error (FWE) correction by a permutation test. (C) The feedforward and feedback pathways of saliency signals between V1 and IPS, assessed by the layer-specific generalized psychophysiological interaction (gPPI) analysis of functional connectivity. (D) Functional connectivity difference (90° vs. 15°) of the two pathways in C. Each gray dot represents a single participant. Error bars represent the standard errors of th
by: Chen Liu (75209)
Published: (2025)

Laminar fMRI responses in V1, V2 and IPS. (A) Upper: Normalized CBV responses ( in percent signal change) to the orientation foregrounds in V1, V2, and IPS. Lower: CBV response difference between the 90° and 15° foreground conditions (). Each gray dot represents data from one participant. Error bars represent SEM. *, ** and *** indicate <i>p</i> < 0.05, <i>p</i> < 0.01, and <i>p</i> < 0.001, respectively. D: deep, M: middle, S: superficial. (B) Volume activation maps of the saliency-sensitive response in the foreground ROIs of V1, V2, and IPS for a representative participant. Red lines indicate the boundary between gray matter (GM) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Yellow lines indicate the boundary between GM and white matter (WM). (C) Left: Surface activation maps of saliency-sensitive response ( in percent signal change) in different cortical depths of V1 in a representative participant (same participant as in B). Dashed circles indicate the location of foreground on the cortical
by: Chen Liu (75209)
Published: (2025)

Stimuli and procedures for the behavioral and fMRI experiments. (A) Stimulus and procedure of the psychophysical experiment outside the MRI scanner. The orientation contrast between foreground and background bars is defined as θ. (B) Luminance contrast sensitivity () for detecting the 90° and 15° foreground. Each dot represents data from one participant. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean (SEM). *** <i>p</i> < 0.001. (C) Stimulus and procedure of the fMRI experiment. Texture stimuli with three <i>θ</i> conditions were presented in separate blocks. The foreground bars were randomly presented to the lower-left or lower-right of fixation in each block while participants performed a central fixation task. (D) Localizer activations to the retinotopic location of the foreground bars in V1 and V2 of the early visual cortex and IPS of the parietal cortex (thresholded at <i>p</i> < 0.05 uncorrected in a representative participant), as indicated by the dashed circles. Dash
by: Chen Liu (75209)
Published: (2025)

Three possible hypotheses on the origins of saliency signals and their consequent laminar patterns of the saliency signals through feedforward and feedback neural pathways.
by: Chen Liu (75209)
Published: (2025)

VASO and BOLD response timecourses in deep, middle, and superficial ROIs of the foreground in V1, and the fitted response with GLM using a canonical HRF (BLOCK4 in AFNI).
by: Chen Liu (75209)
Published: (2025)

The lateralization of localizer activations in IPS and the ROI distributions in IPS subregions.
by: Chen Liu (75209)
Published: (2025)

Original connectivity beta values and connectivity matrix.
by: Chen Liu (75209)
Published: (2025)

Pearson’s correlation between and across three cortical depths in V1, V2, and IPS.
by: Chen Liu (75209)
Published: (2025)

SNRs across cortical depths and the depth-dependent saliency signals normalized by SNR.
by: Chen Liu (75209)
Published: (2025)

Cannot write session to /tmp/vufind_sessions/sess_eghngg9abo932u7im6rmfbv44n